About your Search

20121128
20121128
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
, that there are no unanswered questions. the senators saying this morning the acting c.i.a. director morell told them the al-qaeda references were dropped in the c.i.a. talking points at the request of the f.b.i. because the bureau did not want to compromise an ongoing criminal investigation. but late this afternoon, c.i.a. officials called to correct the record, that it was actually them. rice met with senator joe lieberman who asked if she was coached by the add f before her talk hoe appearances. >> she said no, she was not given messaging points at all by the white house prior to her appearance on those sound morning shows. >> so the meeting today did not settle the matter. it certainly is not as far as these republicans are concerned. >> shepard: what's the response from the administration? >> in that written statement, rice who was joined by the acting c.i.a. director on the hill, said, quote, we explained the talking points provided by the intelligence community and the initial assessment upon which they were based were incorrect in the key respect there was no protest or demonstration in benghazi. al
and close friend simply told the truth as she was permitted to tell it, what the cia gave her to say and no more. for that he charges susan rice, in the words of the new york post, being fried. political fight fans on the tabloids relish this extreme combat what should be a good person's judgment? that's my question tonight. is susan rice now a surrogate for the president, someone to take the punishment when others above her pay grade should be answering the questions, or is she accountable for going on national television knowing she can't tell the whole truth because it's classified? let's begin with senator susan collins, republican of maine. i guess it's the toughest question in the world, senator, and that is, do you believe that susan rice, the u.n. ambassador, knowingly covered up a breach of national security? >> well, let me say this, chris, our purpose is to understand the security failure in benghazi. what the administration told the american public about it. and how we can learn lessons to keep our personnel safer in the future. so that's my interest and goal in this situ
also have the f.b.i. and the secretary of defense and the director of the cia potentially playing that political football game? that would be a huge problem if it were more than just politics. mr. 1: they play hard ball in washington on everything . and unfortunately for susan rice her charm offensive back fire wanted to make nice and made things worse and here is the problem for her going forward. if the administration places her name in confirmation. senators graham and ayotte would place holds on her name. senates have 53 democrats . coming up in january they will have 55 and they need 60. and they need five republicans g to get on board and that could be tough sleeding. >> b <> rian: it is it a almost a joke. mccain and graham and ayote and why are yoa acquiescing . they are flabber gasted after the meeting. we got nothing out of this and i have more questions than before and at 4:00 playing to your point with the cia placed a call and they came out and said acting director morell stated that the cia now says that it deleted the al-qaida references and not the f.b.i.. so they
today having met with the acting director of the cia and ambassador rice, because it is certainly clear from the beginning that we knew that those with ties to all khyber were involved in the attack on the embassy and clearly the impression that was given of the information given to the american people is wrong. -- we knew that those with ties to al qaeda were involved. they knew by the 22nd that the information given to them was wrong, yet they have not cleared that up with the american people to date in saying they were wrong, including the president of the united states. host: the new hampshire senator went on to say she will block any clinton's successor, because she wants more information about the benghazi attacks. what is next on that front? since an individual senator can put a hold on a nomination. that could prevent this from going forward. we have seen this in previous cases. if we saw this in the bush and administration would john bolton. we have seen it in a couple of cases in the obama administration where nominee for a high government post was held up for a long time. it
by the director of the cia, i think it wouldn't be fair to disqualify her based on what she said. >> ambassador rice released this statement after meeting with the republican senators. while we certainly wish we had >> ambassador rice released this statement after meeting with the republican senators. joining me now, msnbc's karen finney and howard fineman. howard, what is your understanding of how these meetings actually went today? we got a very little by way of actual reports on what went on there. you've got lindsey graham trying to say something happened in this meeting to make the situation worse. what could that have been? >> well, from talking to a top official in the white house and to senator mccain, behind closed doors, the meeting wasn't as contentious as those statements after ward made it sound. at least as regard to ambassador rice. i think both sides agree that there are legitimate questions to be asked about the timeline of what happened in benghazi. about the state of knowledge at the time, about security protections and so forth, but as far as holding ambassador rice personal
with the director of the cia and ambassador rice because it's essential clear from the beginning that we knew that those with ties to al qaeda were involved in the attack on the embassy. >> i specifically asked her whether at any point prior to going on the sunday morning television show, she was briefed or... urged to say certain things by anybody in the white house, relate to the campaign or political operations. she said, no, she was not given messaging points at all by the white house, prior to her appearance on those sunday morning shows. >> it is clear that the informs that she gave the american people was incorrect when she said that it was a spontaneous demonstration ib spired by a hateful video. it was not. and there was compelling evidence at the time that that was certainly not the case. >> bottom line, i am more disturbed now than i was before the 16th september... explanation about how four americans died in benghazi, libya, by ambassador rice. i think it does not do justice to the reality at the time and in hindsight, clearly was completely wrong. >> there are no unanswered ques
to get answers from the fbi and the cia and the intelligence committee and all of those other things, we have to go through susan rice. before we can work on preventing this from happening again, we have to agree on what exactly happened. and we don't fully know and we need to find out. >> i appreciate a lot of your position. if this was really about consulate security and what happened that day for a lot of these people, i would find that extremely valid. these are important questions. nobody wants this to happen again. it is completely a tragedy. but what we have is talking point police attacking susan rice because of what she said on the shows. look. they -- all these senators know the intelligence that she got. they know she was briefed by the intelligence community to say this. they know there's no duplicity. she was told what to say and whatnot to say. there's this bizarre kabuki theaters a foekt this. if it's above politics, it's attacking obama and the intelligence community. susan rice is not the doorway in to that. obama who stood up and said i'm where the buck stops. attack me
." in a report requested by the c.i.a., the national research council wrote this year that -- quote -- "while climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict." and back to 2006, the center for naval analysis, a federally funded research and development center that's advised the navy and marine corps since 1942, convened a military advisory board of retired three star and four-star admirals and asked them to support on the threat of security on climate change. the report state that had quo question while uncertainty exists regarding the future extent of predicted climate change, the trends are clear. the nature and pace of climate change is being observed today pose grave implications for our national security. and of course, as the presiding officer knows, in the five years since, the evidence has tracked the worst of those climate change projections, not the most gentle. our nation's top military strategists, nation's top researchers, national research council and national academy of sciences all have recommended that our national security
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)